Mailbag: Salary Cap Questions
Since we have our first double-off-day between games in ages it seems like a good time to catch up on some of the e-mail questions people have asked. I meant to do three or four but as it turns out just one takes up all of my space and time, so here you go.
Salary cap matters are ALWAYS a nightmare...a landmine field that traps media people far more accomplished than I. But I will try my best.
Your first and best resource for contract information is Storyteller's excellent site here. It's pretty much the most accurate I've found. Just pay attention to the color coding on the top of the page. You'll need it!
If you're a closet lawyer you can also check out Larry Coon's salary cap info page here. It's not an easy read but with a little time and attention you can usually find an answer. Just don't expect to read it all the way through! Find the section pertaining to your question and digest in small doses.
A quick look at Storyteller's site shows us that we have a fair amount of potential cap flexibility coming up.
2008-09
Next season isn't so great. The big roadblocks are at the top of the list. Steve Francis' contract will cost us $15.7 million next year. Raef LaFrentz has a player option for $12.7 million. That means he has a choice whether to take that year of his contract as it's written or forego it and seek a new contract on the open market. That's obviously a no-brainer for him. Those two contracts gum up our cap so much that we're bound to be over the limit no matter what else we do.
Lamarcus, Martell, Brandon, Channing, Jarrett, Sergio, Josh McRoberts, and Taurean Green all have team options this summer. That means we have a choice whether to continue their contracts or release them. Some of those are no-brainers for us and anyone who isn't doesn't really matter at that point since we'd be over the cap anyway even if we released them thanks to the LaFrentz/Francis contracts. For the most part, then, there's no use letting anybody go at the end of this season for cap purposes.
2009-10
The summer after this will bring some interesting decisions. Steve Francis and Raef LaFrentz come off the books. In fact the only people on the books for sure at that point are Darius Miles and Joel Przybilla. Their contracts total roughly $16 million.
Oden, Aldridge, and Roy have team options. There's no way we're releasing any of them. Their contracts total $15 million.
We have a couple of first round draft picks coming up too. Depending on where they are drafted those could total $3-4 million. (Assuming we don't win the lottery again.)
That's $34-35 million for sure on the books. The salary cap this year is $55.6 million and is likely to go up as the league is experiencing a modest surge in popularity. That means if the Blazers really wanted they could have at least $20-21 million in free agent money to play with two summers from now.
Getting that large amount, however, would mean retaining none of our current players besides the ones we just mentioned. This is where the decision-making comes in.
These players have contracts with team options that summer:
Steve Blake $4.9 million
Travis Outlaw $4.0 million
Sergio Rodriguez $1.6 million
We have to choose outright whether to retain them at that price or let them go. If we retained them all that's $10.6 million off of our available cap space, or roughly half of it.
These players become restricted free agents that summer:
Martell Webster $5.0 million
Channing Frye $4.2 million
Jarrett Jack $2.9 million
These cases are trickier. There are four options in this situation:
- The Blazers simply renounce the player and take the cap savings.
- The Blazers and the player agree to the amount of the qualifying offer and the player plays one more year for the team at that amount, after which he becomes an unrestricted free agent.
- The player tests the market and gets a better offer, which the Blazers have the opportunity to match. If they match the offer the player stays with the team at that price. If they decline he goes to a new team and comes off the Blazers' cap.
- The Blazers and the player agree to a new contract extension of longer duration and better pay than the qualifying offer.
So for the players we've mentioned so far it's pretty simple: we can either retain them and lose that portion of our cap space or let them go. But there's one player we haven't mentioned yet...the fly in the ointment: James Jones.
James' contract has an option coming up this summer. And unlike those other players it's strictly a player's option. That means he has a choice:
--Play out the last year of his contract and become an unrestricted free agent in the summer of 2009
OR
--Cancel the last year of his contract and try to make more money from us or in free agency this summer.
I think it's clear that it would be better for the Blazers if Jones picked up the last year of his contract. It's cheap at $3.1 million. It would also allow us to make a decision about him at the same time as we make decisions about everyone else.
It's becoming increasingly clear that it would probably be better for Jones to opt out of that year. With his shooting percentage and contributions this year he might be able to get more than $3.1 million on the open market this summer. At the very least he could get more guaranteed years on a contract and thus more security.
James has said he'd like to do what's best for the team, but the reality of the situation is he'll need to do what is best for himself and his agent probably won't let him do otherwise. If he waits until next summer he risks injury. He also risks his value not being as high. He also sets himself up to be one of the players Portland cuts if they want more cap space--which would be the main reason for them asking him to not sign a new contract this year. The team to whom he's being loyal might find its best move is to release him, especially if they want to retain Martell Webster. It doesn't make sense for him to risk that.
The upshot is Jones will probably demand a new contract this year. Whatever the value of that contract, assuming we re-sign him, that's less that we'll have to play with next summer.
The end result of this over-complete depiction is this: Yes, we will have cap space if we want it. It will come at the cost of releasing some of our current players. The question will be whether the player or players we could get on the open market would be of more value to us than the players we already have.
A side note: If you're asking whether we couldn't just sign free agents and THEN re-sign our own guys the answer is basically no. Unless their contracts are actually expiring our own players create what's called a "hold" on our cap. It's like what happens when you check into a hotel. You give them your credit card. They don't actually bill you until your stay is over. But in the meantime they place a hold on your card. You haven't paid the money, but it's reserved for them and you can't spend it on anything else until you've either paid the bill or cancelled your stay. All of the above players except Jones will create "hold" space on our cap until we sign or renounce them. Between all of their salaries the sum total of that hold will be more than the cap, so we can't sign anybody new unless we get rid of them.
What's the Most Likely Scenario?
Based on the information we have right now (keeping in mind I'm not Kevin Pritchard and have no idea what's going on in his mind or anybody else's at Blazer HQ) here's my best guess at what's likely to happen.
--Jones is going to want a new contract this year and unless Martell plays out of his mind in the second half of the season we're likely to give it to him. That'll be $4 million or so off of the cap space right there, leaving $15-16 million.
--At this point picking up Travis' and Sergio's contract options seem like no-brainers. That's another $5.6 million, cutting the available space down to around $10-11 million.
--Blake, Frye, and Jack are going to have to play at an extremely high level in order to be retained, with the burden being heaviest on Steve, then Channing, then Jarrett. At this point I'm guessing we won't keep any of the above. I know it's a hard choice, but some of those have to be made.
--Martell is the most interesting question. Basically it's going to be a matter of whether we think he helps us more than whoever we could get on the open market with between $6-11 million to offer (depending on who else we keep). That cap space is a huge chunk of change when you figure yearly raises. But what we'd have left after retaining Martell would be far more modest. He's going to want a nice offer and he's going to want playing time. Will we give him either?
Of course all of this assumes we're not trading some of these players away, which is also possible. Keep in mind having cap space in the summer of 2009 would also allow us to trade some of our players for other players who make more money. We wouldn't have to take equal salaries in return. We could, for instance, renounce Blake, Frye, and Jack then re-sign Martell to a modest contract and trade him and Sergio for somebody who makes $6 million more than their combined salaries. That is another facet to the flexibility.
One last, important facet: All of this cap space will disappear entirely if we don't use it within the next couple of years. We're going to have to extend the contracts of our stars after that. If we want to re-sign Outlaw he comes due the very next season. At that point the space and flexibility go bye-bye. If we do want to sign a significant-salary free agent our window is fairly tight.
Hope this helps!
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
36 comments
Comments
this was
i guess it'd have to depend on who's on the market that year. Outlaw could demand significant cash if he keeps playing at a high level. I'm not sure resigning Jones is a done deal. I trust KP. We might believe that Martell can fill that role as a 3 pt specialist.
by ssa400 on Jan 29, 2008 1:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yah
Martell is an even stickier issue, as he'll command more. And I think the chances of him settling for a one-year qualifying offer are small.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 1:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff Dave
I'm not a fan of free agency. I don't think the Blazers shouldn't use the cap space.
I'm dead set against keeping Martell. Unless we get to keep him for a ridiculous bargain which is unlikely. I just think he is a classic underachiever. He has all this athletic ability but he's content shooting jumpers like he's Eric Piakowski.
by jayseyfield on Jan 29, 2008 1:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Great recap Dave
by BlazersOrBust on Jan 29, 2008 3:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Gotta re-sign Jones
by sergioFTW on Jan 29, 2008 8:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
How about this...
- Resign Jones this year for a long-term deal
- Keep Outlaw and Sergio next year
- Let McRoberts, Blake, and Green go
- Resign Jack, Martell, and Frye and trade them to Memphis (along with our #1 pick) for Mike Conley Jr. , Hakim Warrick, and Damon (if he's still there)
- Buy out Damon
- Bring in Rudy and Koponen and Freeland
1- Conley, Sergio, & Koponen
2- Roy & Fernandez
3- Outlaw & Jones
4- Aldridge & Warrick
5- Oden & Przybilla & Freeland
by kbbballkid37 on Jan 29, 2008 9:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Damon's already gone
by jamon51 on Jan 29, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you won't mind
You're right, Storyteller's site is a good one. Unfortunately, he's one man against the world and doesn't update often. Hoophype has a more up to date salary picture of every team:
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries.htm
Although they aren't significant salaries, I didn't see where you listed Fernandez, Kaponen, or Freeland. It sounds like Rudy will be here next season so his salary will take another million+ off the cap. And since both Kaponen & Freeland were 1st round picks, they represent applied cap-holds of over 1.7 million unless Portland renounces the right to them.
Personally, I don't believe Jones is that significant of a fly in the ointment. A new contract for him would probably be in the 5 million a year range and that's only 2 million a year more then his salary. And keep in mind, it's almost certainly true that good players (especially someone who can stretch the defenses like Jones can) under attractive contracts are very tradable commodities. It would be a mistake to let Jones walk unless he has unreasonable demands.
The contracts of the three current 3rd year players are actually the most 'pressing' issue in my view. Those are Webster, Frye, and Jack. You mentioned them simply playing for their qualifying offers and then becoming unrestricted free agents in 2010. It's not that simple. By June 30, 2009, portland would need to extend them their QO's. Those players would then become restricted free agents.
I'll use Martell Webster as the example. If portland extends the QO to Martell and he becomes a RFA, then by CBA rule his cap-hold becomes 300% of his just completed season's salary (formula derived because his would be less then NBA average salary). His previous salary will have been 3.771 million, meaning his cap hold will be over 11.3 million. That effectively would kill the cap-space plan. And to a lesser extent the same is true for Frye at 9.5 million, and Jack at 6 million. And if they were RFA, they could take all summer testing the FA market and basically hold the cap-space plan hostage.
This essentially means that portland needs to decide THIS summer, not only if they are going to keep jones, but also webster, frye, and jack. If those 3 don't have their contracts extended this summer, then to preserve the cap space option,, portland would have to either trade them before the feb 2009 deadline, or renounce the rights to them immediately in the 2009 off-season.
The cap-space plan was originated this summer. Blake, Outlaw and Jones all have contracts pointing to that plan. But this summer it wasn't evident how valuable outlaw and jones would become, or how well Blake fits in as a starter with Roy. There may have also been some hope in the blazer FO that Miles might still take a medical retirement. Well, things have changed and I think the changes have some significant ramifications to that plan. Perhaps, to use KP's analogy, the icing for the cake is already on the roster. Especially when you start to look at just who portland would need to sacrifice for at best, a speculative option.
Add to that the fact that the list of probable free agents in 2009 is not that impressive. Then add the very significant factor that several teams besides portland may have substantial cap-space, and the foundation of the cap-space plan starts to crumble a bit.
by moldorf on Jan 29, 2008 9:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Technically
Otherwise I agree that it's become a coin flip whether free agents or our current roster helps us more. The problem which you highlight so well is that we're not likely to be able to do some of each, even in a small way. It will be Jack/Webster/Channing OR free agents, probably not both. Maybe you could keep one of the three, but it probably won't be Martell.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
PLUS
I'm not sure that's likely in any of the three cases but it is a possibility.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's possible
I'm not sure if an agreement like that would violate the CBA. It certainly would if there was a wink and a nod from the Blazer FO that somehow guaranteed that player X would get a handsome new contract after playing the year for the QO. There's some provision about anything that circumvents the untent of the CBA.
Another aspect I'm not entirely certain of, but I do think is true: A player who is playing under his QO, essentially can veto any possible trade. That's because he'd lose bird rights in the event of a trade, they wouldn't transfer with him. So a player is allowed to kill any trade because of that.
by moldorf on Jan 29, 2008 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How it would have to work:
--Player and agent immediately accept, presumably because either:
A. They think they can make MORE money next season as an unrestricted free agent
B. They don't think they'll make anything on the open market this year.
Or both.
--The cap hold goes off right away, replaced by the actual contract value. We have that player plus the amount of cap space minus his new salary.
The problems with this scenario is that it would take a very particular situation for a player to agree to this. If a player is very, very good (e.g. Brandon Roy) there's no way we want him to become an unrestricted free agent. Sure he'd probably want to re-sign with us but we wouldn't take that chance. If a player is good and feels that we want him then he's probably going to want more than a one-year deal. If a player is lousy then, of course, we wouldn't bother with the offer at all. So the player in question has to be good enough to retain but not so good that he can get a great deal elsewhere. That's a tricky balance, especially when you throw in the player's own assessment of his value plus his agent's.
However I could see it happening in a case like Jarrett Jack...a guy who maybe hasn't had a true chance to prove himself but the team likes him and he likes the team. He may figure he's not going to get an offer that gives him more money the next season than the Blazers' qualifying offer does. He may also figure that with another year under his belt he may be worth more to the Blazers or someone else. For that reason he may be willing to risk a one-year contract. The "good but unproven" scenario is about the only one that works that I see.
However it would be unrealistic to assume that any, let alone all, of the players in question would fit that mold and be willing to fiddle with their possible future earnings like that. I would guess that basically, in the end, it's simply going to come down to the original choice: our own free agents or someone else's?
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I posted a list of free agents I compiled from Storyteller's site at the bottom of this thread. That is not guaranteed to be complete but at least it will begin to help gauge the value of cap-space.
by moldorf on Jan 29, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
Allow Martell, Channing, and Jarret to become RFA and the 300% rule means the total cap-holds would be over 26 million.
If portland doesn't extend the QO's and allows them to be unrestricted free agents, then the cap-holds would be under a 200% rule, or about 18 million.
and those cap-holds remain in force till the players have accepted the QO's or signed new contracts.
Understand that I'm no expert on this. I'm certain Tom Penn can squeeze through CBA doors I know nothing about and do so sideways, upside-down and backwards....while asleep.
But the window for those new contracts is this summer. Go past the extension deadline before next season, and the options become limited to trade or renouncement...assuming cap-space is the holy grail of course.
by moldorf on Jan 29, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
YES, we can have cap space BUT it will mean renouncing players in order to get it. So the choice will be the players we have versus the players we can sign.
The cap space hold thing is why for the most part it must be a choice and not a "both-and" deal. Neither can we bide our time and say, "If we don't find anyone else we'll come back and extend your contract."
But the cap space hold doesn't change the fact that we always do have that choice to renounce them and sign another free agent instead.
Another way of looking at this is that you are in essence trading the players you don't sign for the ones you can. Let's PRETEND Chris Paul were available and willing to come to Portland. (Neither is true, probably, but for pretend.) We would probably say renouncing Jack, Frye, and Webster was worth it. Assuming we knew he'd sign with us it would be just like a trade, except the players we got rid of would become free agents instead of heading to New Orleans. However the judgment call becomes a lot trickier when you start assessing lesser talents and start trying to figure whether they actually WILL sign with you. It would be a bummer to renounce Martell, Jarrett, and Channing to get Player X and then Player X becomes a Hawk. DOH!
Therefore your scenario of just retaining most of our players and foregoing the cap room is more likely than them all being renounced. I would say a trade package using a couple of re-signed contracts and some cap space created by renouncing one of them is a strong possibility too.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Another factor about trades
I know it's a technicality, but players don't get traded, their contracts do. So there is certainly and ancillary benefit to having a passel of decent young players under attractive contracts. That would apply for instance, to the scenario of portland extending the contracts of Webster, Frye, Jack and Jones this summer. Especially if KP was adroit at signing them to bargain contracts. And to this point he appears to be a little bit clever.
That would mean that Portland would not be without options in the 2009 off-season. They could have 4-8 million in cap space(cap-space can be used in trades too); a dozen good young players with desirable contracts; their first round pick; the rights to Kaponen and Freeland; AND the expiring contract of Darius Miles. That's a lot of combined leverage.
They could even forget about cap room and look at using their MLE this summer and next. For instance, Eduardo Najera is an unrestricted free agent this summer. He'd be a great energy guy and rebounder off the bench, and could be had for less then the MLE.
by moldorf on Jan 29, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What about Darius Miles?
It's one thing for the Oregonian Blazer writers to willingly stick their heads in the ground to avoid discussing anything Darius related, but for a fan-based site to do so...? This isnt a ignore it and it will go away situation, unless you can ignore it for 2 more years and disregard the millions of dollars Darius banked.
So whats going on with Darius' milk and cookies deal with the PTB?
by bow4meow on Jan 29, 2008 9:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Which part of
did you miss? And what else is there to say? He's on the books. He can't be traded without giving up a ton of major talent alongside him. He won't be re-signed but we have to pay him through 2010.
That's the story on Darius.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
by Sabonis4Ever on Jan 29, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
egg on face
Sorry if I struck a nerve on the whole Darius issue, but thanks for getting to the heart of it.
He's on the books now I know.
GO T R A I L B L A Z E R S !!!
by bow4meow on Jan 29, 2008 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No nerve struck
I was chuckling as I typed.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
tg for Tom Penn
I liked Dave's comments about Martell and if he helps us more than what we could get and all that goes into that decision. I'm glad I can leave that to K.P. because after reading about the chemistry I don't want anyone to go :-)
Two new first round draft picks ... I wonder if we'll try to keep them.
by jorga on Jan 29, 2008 10:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
3 Stars
by kenzc76 on Jan 29, 2008 11:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
by robrun2 on Jan 29, 2008 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
James Jones' knees
by Samuelson on Jan 29, 2008 1:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We don't need the cap space.
by bfan on Jan 29, 2008 1:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Great work! I follow your analysis but....
I don't see Chris Paul leaving NO at this time because his team is enjoying even more success than the Blazers. He would have to be content with significantly less than max money and a shorter contract and lower raises than NO can offer. He could sign a three year contract and get even bigger bucks thereafter.
Wade is a different story. Who around the league gives Miami any chance to dig themselves out of this hole while Wade is still in his prime? Does he want to spend his career like Koby did the past two years. baby sitting and hoping for a lucky white ball? If things look bleak enough maybe he considers Portland and 10-12 million but a major market city would make him more endorsement money.
My thinking is leaning towards keeping these guys mostly intact, adding rookies and as we mature signing veterans for the minimum to fill out role needs. I remember last summer when we were all speculation on the small forward KP was going to get with the Zach trade. James Jones was not on most people's (mine included) radar. KP woul not have said anything about 2009 cap if that was anything but a smoke screen imo.
by lee3022 on Jan 29, 2008 1:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Neither will be possible
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A scenario like that
Again, though, this will not happen with either of those two players. Or rather, I would be COMPLETELY shocked if it did.
--Dave
by Dave on Jan 29, 2008 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good players on piss-poor teams
It looks like Paul's run with the Hornets will be lasting a while, though.
by Samuelson on Jan 29, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK...I did some Research
these players contracts expire:
Joe Smith
Drew Gooden
Brandon Bass
Rasheed Wallace (now this would be bizarre)
Jeff Foster (ultimate banger)
Lamar Odom
Desmond Mason
Jason Kidd (about 108 years old by then)
Mike Bibby
Chris Wilcox
2008/09 Player options & ETO's (would have to complete contract):
Allen Iverson
Baron Davis (can't stay healthy)
Jermaine O'Neal (can't stay healthy, part 2)
Elton Brand
Corey Maggette
Shawn Marion
Gilbert Arenas
2009/10 Player options & ETO's (would have to opt out)
Richard Hamilton
Al Harrington
Kobe Bryant
Hidayet Turkoglu
Kyle Korver
Amare Stoudamire
Carlos Boozer
Mehmet Okur
A lot of C/PF's in that list but with Oden and LMA, is that what Portland needs? Then of course, most will simply re-sign with their teams or opt-out a year before or after portland has cap-space.
finally, there's the possible players who may be disgruntled enough with their current teams to simply accept their rookie scale qualifying offers and become UFA:
Josh Childress
Josh Smith
Emeka Okafor
Ben Gordon
Luol Deng
Andre Iguodala
Andris Biedrins
Delonte West
Kris Humpries
It's highly unlikely that more then 1 or 2 of these players will actually play for their QO's and become UFA.
by moldorf on Jan 29, 2008 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Martell needs to be able to consistenly make shots
Yes he plays a little better defense and gets a few rebounds here and there, but these aren't numbers you are going to pay a ton of money for:
PPG 10.5 | RPG 3.9 | APG 1.5
I know he's young, but he's also a 3 year vet.
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 29, 2008 2:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget
I don't see anyone on the list of reasonably acquirable free agents that could fit our needs better than a seasoned, level-headed, and mature Martell Webster, especially considering that he fits our culture and knows the system--two factors you can't be sure of with most FA's.
Martell's shot will stabilize. Give it time, and it could be to OUR benefit and not one of our conference rivals.
by broggerboy19 on Jan 30, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like a choice between one $10 million player
I like this team. I will really like it with Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez on it. Generally you overpay for free agents (there's a limited supply and quite a demand). I think we stand a better chance of getting what we want, with greater flexibility by keeping our players at reasonable contracts, and trading for players if necessary. There are many times as many players available in trades than there are free agents each year.
by EnglandDan on Jan 30, 2008 10:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If Dave's assessment
And I totally agree with your conclusion.
Why risk what you know will work for a new, unpredictable, variable?
I just don't see anyone on the list good enough to risk what we already have (talent, chemistry, youth, and experience under Nate).
The biggest unknown is what we could acquire via sign-and-trade--only deciphering the mind of KP/Penn could help whittle that list of possibilities down to anything manageable for us amateurs.
Punt.
by broggerboy19 on Jan 30, 2008 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















